Family narratives through the eyes of
an adult child of divorce
1)
Ingunn StØrksen, Dr. psychol. / Associate Professor
Center for Behavioral Research, University of Stavanger, Norway
Karin Liland Berner, Assistant Professor
Department of Early Childhood Development, University of Stavanger, Norway
Arlene Arstad Thorsen, Assistant Professor
Center for Behavioral Research, University of Stavanger, Norway
Abstract
In the present study the authors explore an adult’s retrospect recall of viewpoints of his parents
divorce by applying Q methodology. The study design consists of a single case study where the
authors apply Q methodology with various conditions of instruction. By applying Q methodology
the authors seek to explore various family narratives in an attempt to look for coherence or
divergence between significant people surrounding the subject “Magne” and himself. All
viewpoints are studied according to the way Magne himself believes he and other people
understood the divorce‐process. The Q ‐sort consists of 28 statements selected to represent both
child and adult viewpoints, and also viewpoints regarding both the divorce process and child
living arrangement. The Q ‐sort 4x7 matrix ranges from – 3 to + 3. The factor analyses resulted
in three clear‐cut factors. Results show some coherence and some diversity between the
viewpoints of significant people in Magne’s life. Magne’s viewpoints as a child and his
viewpoints as an adult seem to be very similar. Q methodology seems to be an efficient way of
studying family narratives. Among other things the method clearly helps to give an impression of
similarities and divergences between the various family narratives from one person’s standpoint.
Key words: : divorce, living-arrangements, family-narratives, adjustment, Q-methodology
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Arlene Arstad Thorsen
Center for Behavioral Research
University of Stavanger
N-4036 Stavanger Norway
E-mail: [email protected]
R eceived O c t. 2 5, 20 08 R ev ised N o v. 20 , 2 00 8 A ccep ted N o v. 29 , 2 00 8
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙27
I. Introduction
In this study the authors explored various stories and viewpoints that might be
represented in the memory of an adult child of divorce. Defining meaning and some sort
of congruence in the divorce narrative is recommended for child recovery and adjustment
after divorce. The authors applied Q methodology. The subject was instructed to sort the
statements according to his beliefs of significant people in his family and surroundings.
Analyses through Q methodology indicated coherence or divergence between opinions and
stories held by significant people surrounding Magne from his point of view. It is well
known that parental divorce can affect the offspring in negative ways even during
adulthood; therefore, the study of narratives of adult children of divorce is very relevant.
II. Literature review
Offspring adjustment after parental divorce
Parental divorce during childhood has been found to represent a risk factor for
adjustment problems among both children and adolescents, both in international and
Norwegian studies (Amato, 2001; Amato & B. Keith, 1991a; Størksen, 2005; Størksen,
Røysamb, Holmen, & Tambs, 2006). Even among adult offspring parental divorce
represents a risk factor for adjustment problems such as depression (Gilman, Kawachi,
Fitzmaurice, & Buka, 2003; O’Connor, Thorpe, Dunn, & Golding, 1999; Størksen,
Røysamb, Gjessing, Moum, & Tambs, 2007) and of experiencing a divorce in one’s own
adult life (Amato, 1996; Amato & DeBoer, 2001; O’Connor et al., 1999; StØrksen et al.,
2007; Wolfinger, 2003). In an Icelandic study (Jónsson, Njardvik, Olafsdóttir, & Grétarsson,
2000), young adult offspring of divorced parents reported more negative experiences, and
looser family ties than young adult offspring with parents who remained married. One
study identified an increased risk of frequent job changes (Rodgers, 1994). Parental divorce
or separation during childhood has been associated with problem drinking (Hope, Power,
& Rodgers, 1998; Wolfinger, 1998) and smoking (Wolfinger, 1998) during adulthood.
Results from Amato and Keith’s meta‐study of adult children of divorce (Amato & Keith,
1991b) demonstrated an elevated risk of one‐parent family status, more psychological
adjustment problems, behavior/conduct problems, and a lower educational attainment
28 Journal of Human Subjectivity
among adults who had experienced parental divorce compared to adults with no such
experience.
There are indications that the parent‐child relationship mediates most of the association
between parental discord and divorce, and adult offspring psychological well‐being (Amato &
Sobolewski, 2001). Many other studies support the notion that different aspects of the parent‐
child relationship can explain the association between parental divorce and adult offspring
adjustment to some extent (Laumann‐Billings & Emery, 2000; O’Connor et al., 1999).
The findings highlight the continuing importance of relational closeness between parents
and children in the post‐divorce family. Such relational closeness between the child and
both parents in the post‐divorce family might depend on a common ground of
communication about the divorce event, because diverging stories between the family
members may represent a source of loyalty conflict and incongruence in the child.
Stressors and protective factors
In “the divorce‐stress‐adjustment perspective” outlined by Amato (2000), divorce was
described as a process that can trigger various stressors for the child. Several of the stressors
mentioned by Amato are related to living arrangements. For the children of divorce practical
changes, such as where to live and plans for visits to the non‐residential parent, might be
the most apparent changes. Living arrangements can potentially activate loyalty conflict in
the child. The child can experience strong feelings of loss of a parent. Parental conflict often
relates to the children’s living‐arrangements and is known to be one of the most stressing
factors related to divorce for the children involved (Amato & Keith, 1991a). In “the divorce‐
stress‐adjustment perspective,” it is assumed that the children’s adjustment after divorce will
vary with the amount of stressors that are triggered (Amato, 2000).
However, stressing factors alone cannot fully explain child adjustment after divorce.
Positive factors in the child’s life also have an impact on child adjustment, and these factors
may protect against potential stressors related to divorce (Amato, 2000). Protective factors
may include individual, interpersonal or structural resources. They may also include
demographic variables, such as a secure economic situation. One of the protective factors
mentioned by Amato was “definition and meaning of divorce” (Amato, 2000: 1271). In other
words it is important for the child to have access to adults that help the child to a coherent
and meaningful story or narrative of the divorce.
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙29
Social construction theory
A core element of social construction theory is that reality is socially created through the
individual’s social interaction (Gergen & Gergen, 2003). Social construction theory claims
that social routines and establishment of various roles are important elements in a child’s
developing worldview. For young children the subjective social world is taken for granted
as the “sole reality,” and therefore early social development during childhood is very
influential on an individual’s later worldview. According to social construction theory,
individuals make sense of their social observations of themselves and others by ordering
these experiences into scripts. Thus, various meaning systems are organized into different
scripts. Scripts are useful both for guiding action and for understanding it. Dominant scripts
are the most vivid and influential scripts for individual judgment and action (Atwood, 1997).
In addition a person can possess alternative scripts. “Even when the individual conforms
to the dominant script, awareness of the other scripts has therapeutic relevance because
awareness brings awareness of choice”(Atwood, 1997: 21). In this study the authors
explored whether an adult child of divorce has an awareness of alternative ways of dealing
with a divorce to the way the subject himself has experienced.
According to social construction theory, scripts may be altered and new scripts may be
added in relation to life changes, for instance, marriage. “Individual scripts merge to form a
third script when two individuals join together as a couple”(Atwood, 1997: 28). Thus, the
original scripts of individuals ― which are often based on experiences from the past ― are
merged together in a couple‐script. Therefore, individual childhood scripts may have
influence on adult life and marriage, but may also be altered by happenings in adult life
such as the involvement with a new partner. Q methodology has previously been applied
in various studies with a social constructional foundation, e.g. a study on young adults’
constructions of gender conformity and nonconformity (Brownlie, 2006), and a book on the
social construction of lesbianism (Kitzinger, 1987).
Narratives of divorce
Another branch of social construction theory is narrative theory and therapy. In a
narrative approach to therapy, White and Epson (1990) described how stories or narratives
of one’s life tell one not only what has happened previously in one’s life. In many ways,
one also lives in accordance with one’s personal stories. A person’s story of one’s life
history is merely a selection of some key situations and happenings that one consciously or
30 Journal of Human Subjectivity
more unconsciously chooses to focus on. Some people have a tendency to focus solely on
failure, pain and sorrow. In these cases a therapist needs to focus on positive exceptions to
the individual’s leading story. These positive exceptions consist of positive happenings and
situations that occur to all people. However, these happenings are not always recognized as
a significant part of the story of people in pain. These positive happenings and situations
may include themes as mastery, control, joy, hope, pride and optimism. By highlighting
positive exceptions to the leading story, a new and revised story may emerge that can lead
the client to live in accordance with a story consisting of mastery and growth in a troubled
life situation (White & Epston, 1990).
Experiencing divorce is related to symptoms of anxiety and depression (Størksen et al.,
2007), and the situation may often be characterized by high levels of conflict (Amato &
Keith, 1991a). Positive aspects of marriage and family life might be defocused in times like
these, and the children may, therefore, develop a life story or a narrative characterized by
sorrow, loyalty conflict, loneliness, and low mastery.
Some Norwegian family therapists have brought ideas similar to narrative theory into
mediation and family therapy with divorcing families (Haaland, 2002; Tjersland, 1992, 1996).
Based on a research project that involved 38 divorcing families, Tjersland (1992) concludes that
the story (or narrative) on which the couples base their future cooperation sometimes needs to
be re‐written. The original idea of Tjersland (1992) and colleagues was to focus mediation on
the present situation and future cooperation. However, even if Tjersland and his group do not
conclude that old conflicts and difficulties should be a main focus of mediation, they do
conclude that recognizing difficult feelings and working towards a story about the past that the
couple can tell their family and friends may help the family move forward. This story can help
and guide the adults in their future cooperation as parents (Tjersland, 1996).
Children and adults in many ways act together in creating the child’s story. The created
story is an important part of the child’s development and identity formation (Haaland,
2002). Adults help children put words to happenings in the child’s life. In this way adults
have a great influence on children’s development and identity formation. Therefore, it is of
great importance that parents and others are able to help children to a story that covers
reality but also leads to understanding and hope (Haaland, 2002; White & Epston, 1990).
The authors’ question is to what extent adult children of divorce have consistent family
stories or narratives of divorce with the potential of helping them in their future adjustment
and development in their original and new families, and in life in general. An exploration
of this area can help further indicate which areas should be in focus when intervening with
children and their divorcing parents.
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙31
Main objective
In the present study, the authors aimed to explore an adult child’s various stories or
narratives of the event of his parents divorce and of the living‐arrangements that were made
for the children. Q methodology was applied in order to explore whether this method
could be suitable for illuminating various family stories or narratives.
III. Research Method and Design
Q methodology is a method that combines both quantitative and qualitative research
traditions (Brown, 1991/1992, 1996; Dennis & Goldberg, 1996). There can be misunderstandings
and confusions related to Q methodology (Thorsen, 2006; Watts & Stenner, 2005), since its
quantitative features make it a rather unusual qualitative research method (Curt, 1994).
Stenner and Stainton Rogers (2004) called it qualiquantological. Some used only the
quantitative aspects of the method without regard to the philosophy, which Q methodology
is based upon (Thorsen, 2006). Others turned to qualitative methods to escape quantitative
logic (Watts & Stenner, 2005). Such qualitative methods could be discourse analysis (Jones
& Norris, 2005), narrative analysis (Crossley, 2000), or phenomenological analysis (Smith,
2001). According to Watts and Stenner (2005: 69), it would be unfortunate and make little
sense if qualitative researchers were to reject Q methodology for the mathematics
incorporated into it, since the method “was designed for the very purpose of challenging
the dated, Newtonian logic of ‘testing’ that continues to predominate in psychology.” Q
methodology provides a structure for data analysis through Q factor analysis while keeping
subjectivity intact during this procedure. According to Stephenson (1953: 254), the
methodology “can be applied to any subjective operations of a person, for projections as
much as for retrospections.”
Q methodology focuses on subjective aspects of human behavior (Stephenson, 1961c)
and is therefore very suitable for studies of emotional experiences and discrimination
between emotions. This was exemplified by Stenner and Stainton Rogers’ study (2004),
where each participant sorted the same sample of statements under four conditions of
instruction, which corresponded to four social emotions: Love, Jealousy, Joy and
Embarrassment. The method can be conducted with a group of participants to explore
common or diverging subjectivity among several individuals, or it can be conducted as a
single case study, where the one individual is instructed to respond according to several
32 Journal of Human Subjectivity
conditions of instruction (Brown, 1980; Stephenson, 1953), thereby illuminating intra‐
individual differences. The same statements can have quite different significance to the
individual under varying conditions of instruction (Stephenson, 1953: 195). Q methodology
can illuminate substantive thought and transitive feeling tones that complete the whole
expression of subjective experience (Allgood, 1999).
The area of exploration for this present study was investigated by applying Q
methodology with a single‐case design and multiple conditions of instruction. “Such Q‐
sorting no doubt does injustice to the complexities of the subjectivity, but at times it also
perhaps helps the subject to make some sense of her perceptions”(Stephenson, 1974: 10).
The Q-sorting process leads to operant factors. With multiple conditions of instruction,
some operants that emerge are self‐referred while others are not (Stephenson, 1974). An
example of a non-self-referent operant would be when a respondent refers to how another
person reacts to an event such as a divorce.
In this study, the authors recruited a young adult child of divorced parents and instructed
the person to sort the randomly numbered statements under multiple conditions of
instruction according to a forced distribution. This allowed the respondent to rank order
each statement in accordance with his or her preferences and in relation to all the other
statements within the limits of a forced distribution. Some find the forced distribution
challenging, but then it does what it is supposed to do, namely accentuate preferences.
PQMethod 2.11 (Schmolck, 2002) was used to analyze data.
Q‐Sample
Two interviews were conducted with two Norwegian adult children of divorce in their
mid‐thirties. In addition to statements created from literature (e.g. StØrksen, 2005), these
interviews were important sources of statements for the Q‐sample.
Two dimensions were considered in the creation of the Q‐sample. First, the authors
wanted statements that covered both the child and the adult perspective of the divorce
event. Second, the authors wanted to explore viewpoints of both the actual divorce event
and also viewpoints related to living‐arrangements that were made for the children. The Q‐
sample was, therefore, structured in a Fisher’s balanced block design (Brown, 1980;
Stephenson, 1953). As shown in Table 1, this Q-sample has four categories. Each category
has seven statements, resulting to 28 statements as shown in Appendix A.
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙33
Table 1. Distribution of statements in the Q-sample.
Child perspective, A
Adult perspective, B
Experiences related to the divorce, C
A x C
B x C
Experiences related to the living‐arrangements, D
A x D
B x D
P‐set
An adult child of divorce was recruited from the South‐West of Norway. The subject was
given both written and verbal information about the study’s purpose and design, and was
subsequently presented with all his ethical rights according to Norwegian ethical standards
for research. The subject signed an informed consent sheet that he was willing to
participate. This study has been approved by the NSD (The Norwegian Social Science Data
Services). Some details regarding the subject that are not of importance for the results of
this study have been altered in order to secure the subject’s anonymity. The subject was
given the pseudonym “Magne.” Magne’s parents divorced when Magne was in his early
school years. At the time of the divorce, Magne had one younger sister.
Q‐Sorting
In order to explore the various viewpoints of the divorce, Magne was given the following
eight conditions of instructions: Sort the cards according to the way you think seems most
like or most unlike the way:
1) you looked upon the situation as a child (Short title: ‘As a child’)
2) you understand the situation today (‘Today’)
3) you think your mother experienced the situation (‘Mother’)
4) you think your sister experienced the situation (‘Sister’)
5) you think your father experienced the situation (‘Father’)
6) a person you know – whose parents do not live together – experienced his or her
divorce (’Friend’)
7) you think it would have been best for your children in this kind of situation
(‘Children’)
8) you would have liked it to be for yourself (‘Wish’)
The statements were sorted into a matrix ranging from – 3 to + 3. Four statements were
34 Journal of Human Subjectivity
placed under each value, as shown in Figure 1. The reason for this flat distribution was that
the statements in the Q-sample all seemed quite loaded with emotions. A neutral position
seemed almost impossible for many of the statements, and the authors therefore assumed
that several extreme categories were needed.
Most unlike
Most like
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
+1
+2
+3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Figure 1. Q‐sort distribution
Brown (1971) argued that the same results are obtained despite the response distribution,
and that ordering preferences are more influential than distribution preferences and no
important statistical information is lost by using differing distribution matrixes. Cottle and
McKeown (1980) support that the matrix for Q-sorting is arbitrary for the results, and that
bell‐shaped, flat or matrixes with more statements on the extreme ends may be applied
without seeming to affect factor structure. An important methodological issue in Q
methodology is that the mean or zero has no weight, but is a “zone of hedonic
neutrality”(Brown, 1980: 22) and can be seen as a relative point of meaninglessness
compared to the more meaningful positions at each of the extremes.
Magne conducted Q-sorting during five different sessions on different days, thus
experiencing only a maximum of two sorting conditions per day. Despite seemingly
generous time for the Q-sorting procedure, Magne reported that working with the
statements was psychologically challenging for him. However, he reported that he managed
to complete sorting under all conditions of instructions, and was able to express his
subjective experiences of his family situation.
IV. Results
The main objective of this study was to explore an adult child’s various stories of the
event of his parents’ divorce and of the living‐arrangements that were made for the
children. The eight different conditions of instruction resulted in eight Q sorts, which were
analyzed by the PQMethod 2.11 program (Schmolck, 2002). Three factors emerged based
on the principal component factor analysis. Varimax rotation led to three clear-cut factors
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙35
(Refer to factor scores in Appendix B and rotated factor matrix in Appendix C.) A centroid
factor extraction with hand‐rotation was tried out, but results showed that the original
principal component extraction with varimax rotation led to a clearer factor solution.
Defining Q-sorts and distinguishing statements for each of the three factors based on this
analysis are described below. The short title for the varying conditions of instruction was
used instead of the full one.
Factor 1: Grief, confusion, and loneliness
The following conditions of instructions defined Factor 1; “As a child,” “Today,” “Mother,”
and “Sister.” Thus the Q‐sort that Magne made for himself today, as a child, and the Q‐sort
that he made based on what he thought were the opinions of his mother and sister define
Factor 1.
Distinguishing statements for Factor 1 on the positive end of the scale include “My
mother thought the situation was devastating”(3), “I stopped smiling for a whole year”(3),
“There are things my parents could have done to make the situation easier for us”(2), and
“I had nobody to talk to about the divorce”(2).
On the negative end of the scale the distinguishing statements for this factor include “The
divorce gave some positive changes”(‐2), “My opinions of where to live were taken in to
consideration”(‐2), “We were safe at our dad’s place”(‐3), and “It was known for a long time
that there would be a divorce”(‐3). All in all the most characteristic features of this factor
might include grief and sorrow.
Factor 2: Responsible adults, consideration, and cooperation
The following conditions of instructions define Factor 2; “Friend,” “Children,” and “Wish.”
Thus, none of the Q-sorts that define this factor are actual people in Magne’s original
family.
Distinguishing statements for Factor 2 on the positive end of the scale include “My
mother and father tried to spare us children from conflict”(3), “My opinions of where to live
were taken in to consideration”(3), “We had two equal homes”(2), “Cooperation regarding
living‐arrangements went well”(2), and “It was known for a long time that there would be
a divorce”(1).
On the negative end of the scale, the distinguishing statements for this factor include
“The parents are responsible for making living arrangements, and children should not have
36 Journal of Human Subjectivity
to choose”(‐1), “Traveling back and forth was hard/strenuous”(‐2), “My mother thought the
situation was devastating”(‐2), “I missed my father a lot”(‐3), and “There was too little
contact with our father for him to call himself a real daddy”(‐3). Thus, Factor 2 is
characterized by a situation where adults take consideration for the children’s feelings and
whishes, and where sad feelings are absent.
Factor 3: Adult control and lack of consideration for children
“Father” was the only condition of instruction defining Factor 3. Distinguishing statements
for Factor 3 on the positive end of the scale include “It was known for a long time that
there would be a divorce”(3), “My mother thought the situation was devastating”(1), and
“The worst thing was the conflict related to the divorce”(1).
There were distinguishing statements for Factor 3 that were neutral: “My opinions of
where to live were taken in to consideration”(0), and “Security is the most important thing
for children in this situation”(0).
On the negative end of the scale, the distinguishing statements for this factor include “It
is important not to pretend everything is ok when it actually isn’t”(‐2), and “Consideration
of the children’s welfare is the most important when living‐arrangements are made”(‐3).
Thus, the most characteristic features of Factor 3 might include adult control and a lack of
consideration for children’s welfare.
V. Discussion
Factor 1: Grief, confusion, and loneliness
The factor is characterized by grief. The Q-sorts on this factor indicate that Magne’s
mother was devastated by the divorce, and that he stopped smiling for a whole year.
Furthermore the Q-sorts indicate that the divorce did not lead to positive changes. Factor 1
also indicates confusion among Magne, his mother and his sister. He thinks none of them
were aware that there would be a divorce, and he does not believe that any of them felt
the children were safe at the father’s house. Finally, Factor 1 indicates loneliness. The way
Magne sees it, and the way he thinks his mother and sister see it, indicates that Magne had
no one to talk to about the divorce, and that his opinions regarding living arrangements
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙37
were not taken into consideration. The way Magne sees it, the story of Magne, his mother
and his sister is full of surprise and negative feelings. Furthermore, this story does not
contain meaning and positive feelings.
Magne’s story as a child and the way he understands the situation in retrospect seems
very similar. This could either indicate that Magne is not able to distinguish the childhood
and adult version of the family divorce, or it might indicate that there actually has not been
any reflection that has led to a revision or adaptation of the original story. According to
White and Epston (1990) one does not only describe one’s past by telling one’s story. One
also lives out one’s story in accordance with what is told. In Magne’s case, there are a lot
of negative feelings related to the story of his original family that might influence his
current life in various ways. However, Magne reported that this very study led to reflection
of past happenings and possible alternatives to the original story. This might help Magne
reflect upon positive alternatives consisting of responsible adults, consideration, and family
cooperation, as is the theme of the next factor.
Factor 2: Responsible adults, consideration, and cooperation
Factor 2 is characterized by a lot of consideration for the children taken by the adults.
The adults spared the children from conflict, they had two equal homes, cooperation went
well, and the children’s opinions were taken into consideration. Also, this factor is
characterized by lack of negative emotions. All in all this factor might represent solutions
that Magne would have liked to experience in his own childhood since the Q‐sorts defining
this factor consist of “Friend,” “Children,” and “Wish.” These are not Q‐sorts representing
actual members of his childhood family, but other, alternative and better solutions to the
divorce situation. By being forced to think of alternatives and wishes, Magne was able to
suggest better and more child‐friendly ways of dealing with a divorce than the one he
himself experienced. The alternative way of dealing with the divorce is characterized by
responsible and caring adults who ― in spite of the divorce ― are able to care for the
children and continue parental cooperation for the children’s best.
Factor 3: Adult control and lack of consideration for children
The most characteristic features of Factor 3 might include a certainty on Magne’s father’s
behalf that there would be a divorce. In Magne’s opinion, his father ― in contrast to the
rest of the family ― was very aware that there would be a divorce. Furthermore, Magne
38 Journal of Human Subjectivity
thinks his father did not think much about Magne’s opinions of where to live, and he does
not think his father was especially occupied with child caring and security in the situation.
He thinks his father would be willing to pretend everything was ok even if it was not. This
might reflect the way Magne believes his father behaved in the divorce situation: His father
may have seemed happy and relaxed when Magne thought everything was sad and
confusing.
Also, he believes his father did not think that the children’s welfare was the most
important when living‐arrangements were made. What does this mean? Maybe Magne thinks
his father was more occupied with thinking of himself than thinking of the children. Taken
together, Magne’s picture of his father is characterized by adult control and lack of
consideration of child‐welfare. Mange’s idea of his father’s story does not seem well
integrated with the story of the other family members.
VI. Q methodology, social construction, and family narratives
This study indicates that Q methodology might be helpful in studying family narratives
both in research and clinical settings. A number of social constructionists have used Q
methodology and found it well suited to determine the subjectivity involved in social
constructs (Smith, 2001). Social construction theory in general and more specifically
narrative theory and therapy is founded on the belief that individual worldviews are
constructed by various ways of storing and understanding social experiences among
different individuals into personal stories or narratives (Atwood, 1997; White & Epston,
1990). Although Q methodology does not give a chronological or continuous narrative of
family happenings from each family member (in the way people normally understand the
concept of stories or narratives), Q methodology may have other strengths in relation to
family narratives. In Q methodology the respondent tells his or her story through the way
he or she sorts the statements. This matches very well with narrative theory and therapy
and social construction theory. Furthermore, Q methodology allows for the highlighting of
congruence and divergence among Magne’s various family narratives in a systematic way.
An individual expresses his or her view through the Q sorting process and there are no a
priori categories. Each view emerges through Q factor analysis in the form of factor arrays.
Regarding the continuous or chronological family narratives or stories, Q methodology
allows for follow‐up interviews where such narratives can be explored. Although the
present study only focused on Magne’s subjective perspectives of his and significant others’
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙39
feelings and experiences in relation to his parents’ divorce, other family members could
have been asked to participate in the study as well. This could have given a broader and
more nuanced picture.
However, in this study the authors were exploring possible incongruence within one
person. Since Q analysis results in various family members loading on different factors from
Magne’s viewpoint, a clearer picture of similarities and differences in family narratives are
made possible. Such a picture may give new meaning both to researchers as well as to
therapists and clients in clinical settings and shed light on hidden feelings and thoughts as
was illustrated by Allgood (1999). In the clinical setting, Q methodology might help suggest
alternative and more constructive family narratives that can help the client move forward
and find alternative ways of understanding and dealing with his or her surroundings. This
study’s conclusion is that Q methodology might shed light on important aspects of family
narratives in various settings.
40 Journal of Human Subjectivity
References
Allgood, E. (1999). Catching transitive thought through Q methodology: implications for
counselling education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(2), 209‐225.
Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 58(3), 628‐640.
___________ (2000). The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 62(4), 1269‐1287.
___________ (2001). Children of Divorce in the 1990s: An Update of the Amato and Keith
(1991) Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 355‐370.
Amato, P. R., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). The Transmission of Marital Instability Across
Generations: Relationship Skills or Commitment to Marriage? Journal of Marriage &
Family, 63(4), 1038.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991a). Parental divorce and the well‐being of children: a meta‐
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26‐46.
______________________ (1991b). Parental Divorce and Adult Well‐Being: A Meta‐Analysis.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 43‐58.
Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2001). The effects of divorce and marital discord on adult
children’s psychological well‐being. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 900‐921.
Atwood, J. D. (1997). Social Construction Theory and Therapy. In J. D. Atwood (Ed.),
Challenging Family Therapy Situations ‐ Perspectives in Social Construction. New
York: Springer.
Brown, S. R. (1971). The forced‐free distinction in Q technique. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 8(4), 283‐286.
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity : Applications of Q methodology in political science
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
___________ (1991/1992). A Q Methodological Tutorial. Retrieved July 7, 2003, from http:
64.242.142.105tutorialsq‐methodology%20primer%20i.htm
___________ (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,
6(4), 561‐567.
Brownlie, E. B. (2006). Young adults’ constructions of gender conformity and nonconformity:
A Q methodological study. Feminism and Psychology, 16, 289‐306.
Cottle, C. E., & McKeown, B. F. (1980). The forced‐free distinction in Q technique: A note
on unused categories in the Q sort continuum. Operant Subjectivity, 3(2), 58‐63.
Crossley, M. L. (2000). Introducing narrative psychology. Self, trauma and the construction
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙41
of meaning Buckingham: Open University Press.
Curt, B. C. (1994). Textuality and tectonics: Troubling social and psychological science.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Dennis, K. E., & Goldberg, A. P. (1996). Weight control self‐efficacy types and transitions affect
weight‐loss outcomes in obese women. Addictive Behaviors, 21(1), 103‐116.
Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2003). Social construction: a reader. London: Sage. Gilman
S. E., Kawachi I., Fitzmaurice G. M., & Buka, S. L. (2003). Family disruption in
childhood and risk of adult depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(5), 939‐
946.
Hope, S., Power, C., & Rodgers, B. (1998). The relationship between parental separation in
childhood and problem drinking in adulthood. Addiction, 93(4), 505‐514.
Haaland, K. R. (2002). Barnet i skilsmissen [The child in divorce] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Jones, R. H., & Norris, S. (2005). Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis.
London: Routledge.
Jónsson, F. H., Njardvik, U., Olafsdóttir, G., & Grétarsson, S. J. (2000). Parental divorce: long‐term
effects on mental health, family relations and adult sexual behavior. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 41(2), 101‐105.
Kitzinger, C. (1987). The social construction of lesbianism. London: Sage.
Laumann‐Billings, L., & Emery, R. E. (2000). Distress among young adults from divorced
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(4), 671‐687.
O’Connor, T. G., Thorpe, K., Dunn, J., & Golding, J. (1999). Parental divorce and adjustment
in adulthood: Findings from a community sample. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40, 777‐790.
Rodgers, B. (1994). Pathways between parental divorce and adult depression. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1289–1308.
Schmolck, P. (2002). PQMethod (Version 2.11). http://www.lrz‐muenchen.de/~schmolck/
qmethod/
Smith, N. W. (2001). Current systems in psychology : history, theory, research, and applications
United States: Wadsworth.
Stenner, P., & Stainton Rogers, R. (2004). Q methodology and qualiquantology. The example
of discrimination between emotions. In Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown & D. D.
Clarke (Eds.), Mixing methods in psychology. The integration of qualitative and
quantitative methods in theory and practice (pp. 101‐117). New York: Psychology
Press.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior : Q‐technique and its methodology. Chicago:
42 Journal of Human Subjectivity
University of Chicago Press.
_____________ (1961c). Scientific Creed: The Centrality of Self. The Psychological Record, 11,
18‐25.
_____________ (1974). Methodology of single case studies. Journal of Operational Psychiatry,
V(2), 3‐16.
StØrksen, I. (2005). Parental divorce: psychological distress and adjustment in adolescent and
adult offspring. Oslo: Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo, Department of
Psychology.
StØrksen, I., Røysamb, E., Gjessing, H. K., Moum, T., & Tambs, K. (2007). Marriages and
psychological distress among adult offspring of divorce: A Norwegian study.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(6), 467‐476.
StØrksen, I., Røysamb, E., Holmen, T. L., & Tambs, K. (2006). Adolescent adjustment and
well‐being: Effects of parental divorce and distress. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 47, 75‐84.
Thorsen, A. A. (2006). A pathway to understanding Q‐methodology. Journal of Human
Subjectivity, 4(2), 33‐53.
Tjersland, O. A. (1992). Samlivsbrudd og foreldreskap: meklingsprosessens psykologi [Divorce
and parenting: the psychology of mediation] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
_______________ (1996). Skilsmissemekling ‐ Når historien må skrives på nye måter [Divorce
mediation ‐ When stories need to be re‐written] In S. Reichelt & H. Haavind (Eds.),
Aktiv Psykoterapi. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67‐91.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends NortonWolfinger, N.
H. (1998). The Effects of Parental Divorce on Adult Tobacco and Alcohol
Consumption. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 39(3), 254‐269.
Wolfinger, N. H. (2003). Family structure homogamy: The effects of parental divorce on partner
selection and marital stability. Social Science Research, 32(1), 80‐97.
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙43
Appendix A
Distribution of the statements in the four categories
No.
Statement
Category
1
My opinions of where to live were taken in to consideration.
AD
2
Traveling back and forth was hard/strenuous.
AD
3
It is best to keep the families separated.
AD
4
We were safe at our dad’s place.
BD
5
Consideration of the children’s welfare is the most important when living‐arrangements are
made.
BD
6
I stopped smiling for a whole year.
AC
7
I would have been nice to be able to cry out.
AC
8
It was known for a long time that there would be a divorce.
AC
9
My father was a coward.
AC
10 The divorce gave some positive changes.
BC
11 I had nobody to talk to about the divorce.
AC
12 It is much nicer to have to places to be.
AD
13 I had a bad conscious (felt sorry for) for the parent I left when I had to go to the other parent.
AD
14 There are things my parents could have done to make the situation easier for us.
BC
15 We had two equal homes.
AD
16 It was easy to make decision about the living‐arrangements after the divorce.
BD
17 My father missed us children.
BC
18 It is important for children to have both their mother and their fathers as active participants in
their lives.
BC
19 There was too little contact with our father for him to call himself a real daddy.
BD
20 Cooperation regarding living‐arrangements went well.
BD
21 My mother and father tried to spare us children from conflict.
BC
22 My mother thought the situation was devastating.
BC
23 I missed my father a lot.
AC
24 Security is the most important thing for children in this situation.
BC
25 There was an agreement on how the living‐arrangements should be after the divorce.
BD
26 It is important not to pretend everything is ok when it actually isn’t.
AD
27 The worst thing was the conflict related to the divorce.
AC
28 The parents are responsible for making living arrangements, and children should not have to choose.
BD
44 Journal of Human Subjectivity
Appendix B
Q statements and rank scores
No.
Statement
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
‐2
3
0
Traveling back and forth was hard/strenuous.
2
‐2
2
It is best to keep the families separated.
0
‐1
2
1
My opinions of where to live were taken in to consideration.
2
3
4
We were safe at our dad’s place.
5
Consideration of the children’s welfare is the most important when living‐
arrangements are made.
‐3
3
3
1
0
‐3
6
I stopped smiling for a whole year.
3
‐3
‐3
7
I would have been nice to be able to cry out.
0
0
0
8
It was known for a long time that there would be a divorce.
‐3
1
3
9
My father was a coward.
‐1
‐2
‐3
10
The divorce gave some positive changes.
‐2
1
3
11
I had nobody to talk to about the divorce.
2
‐3
‐1
12
It is much nicer to have to places to be.
‐3
0
‐2
13
I had a bad conscious (felt sorry for) for the parent I left when I had to
go to the other parent.
‐1
‐2
‐2
14
There are things my parents could have done to make the situation easier
for us.
2
0
‐1
15
We had two equal homes.
‐3
2
‐3
16
It was easy to make decision about the living‐arrangements after the divorce
17
My father missed us children.
18
0
2
‐1
‐2
‐1
1
It is important for children to have both their mother and their fathers as
active participants in their lives.
2
3
1
19
There was too little contact with our father for him to call himself a real
daddy.
1
‐3
2
20
Cooperation regarding living‐arrangements went well.
‐1
2
‐2
21
My mother and father tried to spare us children from conflict.
1
3
0
22
My mother thought the situation was devastating.
3
‐2
1
23
I missed my father a lot.
3
‐3
3
24
Security is the most important thing for children in this situation.
3
2
0
25
There was an agreement on how the living‐arrangements should be after the
divorce.
‐1
1
‐1
26
It is important not to pretend everything is ok when it actually isn’t.
27
The worst thing was the conflict related to the divorce.
28
The parents are responsible for making living arrangements, and children should
not have to choose.
0
1
‐2
‐2
‐1
1
1
‐1
2
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙45
Appendix C
Rotated factor matrix for three‐factor solution
Condition of instruction: Sort the cards according to the way you think seems
most like or most unlike the way
Factor loadings
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
1)you looked upon the situation as a child (‘As a child’).
0.8348 X
‐0.2743
‐0.1249
2)you understand the situation today (‘Today’).
0.8674 X
‐0.2555
‐0.0451
3)you think your mother experienced the situation (‘Mother’).
0.8191 X
‐0.3541
0.0697
4)you think your sister experienced the situation (‘Sister’).
0.7635 X
0.0967
0.1921
5)you think your father experienced the situation (‘Father’).
0.0780
0.0181
0.9646 X
6)a person you know – whose parents do not live together – experienced their
divorce (‘Friend’).
‐0.3219
0.7158 X
0.2717
7)you think it would have been best for your children in this kind of situation
(‘Children’).
‐0.0064
0.8694 X
‐0.1887
8)you would have liked it to be (‘Wish’).
‐0.2450
0.7531 X
0.0768
Note : The letter X indicates defining sorts.
46 Journal of Human Subjectivity
국문초록
이혼에 대한 성인/아이의 눈을 통한 가족 담론
Ingunn StØrksen, Dr. psychol. / Associate Professor
Center for Behavioral Research, University of Stavanger, Norway
Karin Liland Berner, Assistant Professor
Department of Early Childhood Development, University of Stavanger, Norway
Arlene Arstad Thorsen, Assistant Professor
Center for Behavioral Research, University of Stavanger, Norway
본 연구는 Q 방법론을 적용하여 부모의 이혼에 대한 시각을 회상하는 한 성인으로부터 출발하는
단일표본연구로서 다양한 지시조건을 이용하였다. 피험자인 “망네(Magne)”와 자신 주변의 유의미한
타인들 사이에서의 일관성과 차이에 대한 다양한 담론을 탐구하였다. 모든 관점들은 망네 자신이
그와 타인이 이혼과정을 이해하는 방식으로 연구되었다. 28개 진술문이 성인과 아이의 관점을 나타
내도록 선정되었으며 또한 이혼과정과 아이의 새 생활을 담고 있는 것이다. 7점 척도로 이루어진
분류를 통해 3개의 요인을 찾아냈는데 망네의 삶에 있어 유의미한 타인들의 시각에서 일관성과 차
이점을 보여주었다. 어린이로서의 망네의 관점과 성인으로서의 관점은 매우 유사했다. Q 방법론은
가족담론을 연구하는데 있어 유용한 것 같다. 무엇보다 이 방법은 한 개인과 다양한 타인과의 담론
사이에 유사성과 차이점을 이해하는데 확실히 도움이 된다.
주제어: 이혼, 생활환경, 가족 담론, 적응, Q 방법론
Family narratives through the eyes of an adult child of divorce∙47